A dozen years = 250th editions – Fredrick Töben
This 250th edition of our newsletter indicates that Adelaide Institute’s loyal workers and supporters have with seriousness and valour sustained their battle of the wills, bringing clarity in their fact-finding endeavours by celebrating moral and intellectual courage.
Usually after a decade of activism it is normal that individuals tire of battling against the odds, of throwing in the towel and succumbing to basic creature comforts. It is not easy to stand out there at the front line where the odds in any forthcoming dispute is unbalanced on account of legal and financial constraints that usually handicap those who seek to know the truth of a matter. In other words, we can be proud of our contribution to the cause of Revisionism – well done all!
In 1994 when we began this enterprise, my personal aim was to work for ten years, then perhaps to take it easy. By 2004, I had personally achieved what I set out to do – get the ‘Holocaust’ on to Australia’s legal books so that future generations will know that as late as the 1990s Australia succumbed to a witch-trial mentality that attempted to enslave critical minds in a failed ‘Holocaust’ ideology. Basic Common Law principles did not apply anymore.
In 1995 the starter’s gun was heard from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, where Rabbi Abraham Cooper gained media attention by claiming we were a ‘hate’ group, ‘Holocaust deniers’… the usual nonsense. We countered by starting our website and launching it on 1 May 1996. Almost ten years later, and within the last twelve months, so according to our website host, we received over a million hits, whatever that means.
Progress through the court system was slow but determined by an already waiting flawed legal framework – first in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - HREOC, then in the Federal Court of Australia - FCA. That the Racial Discrimination Act - RDA, had specifically been formulated to protect a minority only did not surprise – the source of flawed and unbalanced legislation passed by Australia’s parliament! As spokespersons of one of Australia’s most vociferous and powerful ethnic minority group, the Leibler brothers, Jeremy Jones, Stephen Rothman, et al, represented their Jewish constituents well – and there were all those helpers who illustrated to well the Biblical words: For fear of the Jews! Interestingly, numerous Jews reject these ‘self-appointed’ spokespersons as their own, so according to the letters pages of various editions of The Australian Jewish News.
I worked hard to defend myself before the HREOC, then realized the whole procedure was fatally flawed. The fact that I was before the HREOC defending my work as serious, and certainly academic, did not impress anyone. Commissioner McEvoy adopted the stance that the dispute cannot be resolved because Jeremy Jones didn’t wish to participate in a conflict resolution session. Why not? He wanted the matter to be heard in the FCA!
The current dissident Liberal parliamentarians, who oppose the Australian government’s detention policies, elicited from Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, the response that while individuals are talking with one another there is “always the prospect of resolving differences”. The dissident parliamentarians state this is a “matter of principle and compassion” - ABC Radio, 14 June 2005. The Jew, Jeremy Jones, refused to talk with me, and his guiding principle, as he claimed later in an interview, was to stop us from functioning.
Some time after 2000, McEvoy was rewarded for her railroading me by receiving some honour from the University of Mannheim, where in 1999 I spent seven months in prison for the same matter that she had adjudicated. It must have frustrated her that as Dean of the University of Adelaide Law School, and commissioner of HREOC, her kangaroo court had no power to put me behind bars, as has the German judicial system.
That I failed to find a legal counsel to defend me in the FCA case speaks for itself – and made no difference for the trial Judge, Branson, who granted a summary judgment against me! She, too, was of the opinion that on account of my tertiary qualifications I should be able to defend myself, something that is quite obvious nonsense. I hasten to add that in another matter in the late 1980s I did successfully run my own appeal before a Supreme Court. But this becomes irrelevant here because if you are working within a flawed legal framework, as is the RDA, it does not matter how good and how extensive your mounted defence is – the legal framework is geared to find you guilty. This is the hallmark of the witch trial mentality, something the Germans have perfected.
‘For fear of the Jews’, is a phrase that rings true for many who followed Mrs Olga Scully’s and my HREOC and FCA trials. However, I augment this statement with my now well-worn phrase: Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure!
Laws all over the world now protect the ‘Holocaust’ dogma, just like a religious dogma, possibly replacing, for Christians at least, Christ’s Passion as the in-thing for believers. Unfortunately, those who are embracing the ‘Holocaust’ dogma for whatever reason, are also advocating and spreading virulent German hatred, with a vengeance. Many individuals had become rather tired of the ‘Holocaust’ propaganda that has been saturating all media outlets during January-May on account of the 60th Anniversary of the end of World War Two.
Interestingly, the peddlers of the ‘Holocaust’ dogma do not know when to stop spreading this incessant German hatred. The latest enforcer of the ‘Holocaust’ dogma is US religious professor Deborah Lipstadt who has received good media coverage prior to her arrival in Australia at the beginning of July. Here is a taste of what we can expect, of the logic, of her reasoning process.
ABC Online Radio National - Saturday Breakfast With Geraldine Doogue 21/05/2005
Deborah Lipstadt on her long, ultimately successful, legal battle with Holocaust denier, David Irving.
Geraldine Doogue: All this year we’ve been celebrating the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of course you can’t think about that war without also having to come to terms with the Holocaust. You might have been watching the ABC series, ‘Ten Days to Victory’. Last Thursday we saw footage of the American soldiers entering the German concentration camps and their horror at what they saw there. But as the distance from those times increases, a disturbing phenomenon’s been growing too, that of Holocaust denial, people who claim that the Nazis did not systematically set out to exterminate the Jews. They admit the Jews did die in camps, but not in gas chambers, and not as part of a deliberate policy.
David Irving is the leading Holocaust denier, and the most litigious. His most celebrated case was when he sued an American Professor of Jewish Studies, Deborah Lipstadt, for libel. Lipstadt had accused him of distorting the evidence in order to reach untenable conclusions about the Holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt has just published a fascinating book about her long, ultimately successful legal battle with David Irving. It’s called ‘History on Trial’. Welcome now to Saturday Breakfast, Deborah.
Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you for having me.
Geraldine Doogue: What made you interested in this phenomenon of Holocaust denial?
Deborah Lipstadt: The truth of the matter is I was approached by two prominent Holocaust historians, Yehuda Bauer and Israel Goodman quite a few years ago, and they said to me, ‘Deborah, do you think you ought to take a look at this, probably do a research project on it, or maybe write a book?’ And I really sloughed it off and said, ‘Oh, I don’t think there’s anything there, I think it’s a silly phenomenon’, and I said it’s like flatter thirst. And they argued rather persuasively that it was a form of anti-Semitism and possibly racism, and that it deserved to be looked at, not so much to answer the deniers, because I think don’t think there’s any point to that, but to understand what the phenomenon was all about.
Geraldine Doogue: I just wonder whether some of the people, the eminent historians who continue to support David Irving, your antagonist, because of his meticulous body of research, but who are certainly not anti-Semitic, not known to be anyway, whether you came to understand that in a way they couldn’t believe human beings were capable of such behaviour.
Deborah Lipstadt: I think the few historians, and probably John Keegan?? is the most prominent amongst them –
Geraldine Doogue: Sir John Keegan, whom –
Deborah Lipstadt: Yes, the military historian, the very prominent military historian who testified at the trial under subpoena, not under his own accord, I think he was subpoenaed by Irving. His approach, and those few historians who haven’t really, most of them have abandoned Irving at this point, what they do is they sort of build a little wall around this Holocaust denial and say, ‘Well that’s completely worthless, that’s completely stupid, he goes off at a tangent there, he’s lost his mind, but his other work is good.’ And that’s one of the reasons why during the trial we examined topics like Irving’s treatment of the bombing of Dresden showed that it wasn’t just in relation to the Holocaust that his historical research was not trustworthy.
Geraldine Doogue: And look, just because we covered this very recently in Saturday Breakfast, in a nutshell, can you summarise what was the problem with his coverage of Dresden?
Deborah Lipstadt: With his coverage of Dresden, what he’s trying to do is to set up what I call an immoral equivalency. Yes, the Nazis did bad things, but the Allies, particularly the Americans and the British did as bad, if not worse. And they bombed the city of Dresden in one night and one day, they killed – his numbers are highly inflated, where he says that the number of Dresden victims, sometimes he says 100,000, sometimes he says 150,000, sometimes he says 250,000, he goes as high as 250,000. Which is, according to German records, Nazi records, Third Reich records, the number of dead was about 25,000, which is nothing, I’m not diminishing that in any way, but it’s not 100,000, it’s not 150,000. And what he’s trying to do is to present Dresden as an Allied war crime.
Geraldine Doogue: OK. Now look, getting back to the case itself. One of the initial problems for you was the difference between US and British Libel laws. In the US, David Irving would not have been able to sue you for libel, but in Britain and in Australia, you had to prove that what you wrote was either not defamatory, or that if it was, it was justified. So did that present problems for you, the British way of doing things being so different?
Deborah Lipstadt: It made me crazy. You know, I’ve been raised in a system which expounds that you are innocent until proven guilty, and suddenly I discovered I was guilty until I proved myself innocent. So that was one thing that was quite disturbing, it was a complete reversal of the First Amendment, that’s so important to Americans. And No.2, in America we have what’s called the Public Figure Defence, that someone, such as a politician or an author who puts herself or himself into the public arena, loses the right to sue for libel when it concerns their professional work, unless they can prove malicious intent, that the author knew it was false and went ahead and wrote it anyway. So that’s why he waited for the book to come out in the United Kingdom to be able to sue me there. And I was totally, I don’t know how to say it, was totally discombobulated.
Geraldine Doogue: Was the decision by your lawyers that you should not testify ultimately, was that a difficult one for you?
Deborah Lipstadt: Also exceptionally difficult. My business is talking, I’m a professor, I teach, I write, that’s the tool I have. I was dying to take the stand, I kept asking, ‘Put me on the stand, put me on the stand.’
Geraldine Doogue: Because David Irving makes a big play of that now on his website.
Deborah Lipstadt: Right, exactly. He tried to paint me as a coward, as frightened of him, as what he called ‘Taking the Fifth Amendment’, you know in the United States where you don’t have to testify against yourself. And what he didn’t know, or didn’t care to know, is that I kept saying to the lawyers, ‘Put me on the stand’, and they said, ‘You’re being sued for what you wrote. There’s nothing that you can add by putting you on the stand that is relevant to this case’
Geraldine Doogue: I’m talking with Professor Deborah Lipstadt about her book, History on Trial – My Day in Court with David Irving’. David Irving being a prominent Holocaust denier. Now Deborah, the trial was not about whether the Holocaust occurred or not, but whether you were correct in alleging that David Irving lied, distorted and mistranslated the evidence about it. Now can you give me some examples of how this played out in the court room?
Deborah Lipstadt: Right. Well what we did was follow the footnotes, follow his footnotes, and we found that in virtually every time we followed a footnote, there was a lie or a distortion. I’ll give you a couple of examples. In the Crema No.1, Crematorium No.2, excuse me, it’s one of the crematoria in Buchenau, the death camp adjacent to Auschwitz, or part of the Auschwitz complex, the gas chambers were on the bottom. The people came in, went down the steps, undressed, went into the gas chambers and then there was a small elevator which would transport the bodies up to the next level, the main level, and there were ovens there for burning the bodies.
Robert Jan van Pelt, an extraordinary expert witness on Auschwitz, at one point said, in this building approximately half a million people were murdered. And Irving says, ‘There’s only one elevator Professor van Pelt, correct? He says, ‘Yes’. And he says, ‘Well that must have been the bottleneck, you couldn’t transport half a million people in that one elevator.’ And van Pelt said, ‘Yes, you can’, and they went back and forth. And then he asked van Pelt to do some ‘back of the envelope calculations’ of whether you could transport that number of victims. And van Pelt had to do it and he figured it out, he said, ‘You know, a typical cadaver was of so many kilos’ because he did an estimate between emaciated people and un-emaciated people, and the elevator’s capacity could handle so many bodies, it took a minute to get up, a minute to get down, he did the calculations. And I’m sitting there listening to him and I’m thinking, This is a perfect forensic answer, it’s not too much information, there’s no unnecessary detail, he’s giving just the facts, and this is exactly what the judge needs. And I was very pleased. I said this is a great ‘performance’, if you will, he’s performing terrifically as an expert witness, and I was very pleased. And I just happened, I don’t know for what reason, to glance around at the gallery when he was just completing this testimony, and there was an older woman sitting in the gallery who when I had walked into court that morning, had identified herself to me as a Holocaust survivor, and she was sitting with her head in her hands. And next to her was a younger woman who to my mind looked like her, I assumed it was mother and daughter, and the younger woman had her arm around the older woman trying to extend a measure of comfort. And I suddenly thought, maybe she had someone on that elevator, maybe she had more than some one on that elevator. And suddenly the perfect testimony was so perfect forensic testimony, but it must have been like a dagger to the heart of this woman.
Geraldine Doogue: But also I suppose the challenge to one’s own humanity as an observer, and you actually quote James Dalrymple, writing in The Independent after that day, when he was sitting in the Tube on the way home from sitting through the court case, doing his own calculations until he realised with disgust what he was doing. So I wonder about the challenge to, well, at any point, did you find yourself being drawn in, even though you were the defendant, thinking, Oh yes, I understand what David Irving’s on about there?
Deborah Lipstadt: That didn’t happen, because by the time we went to trial, I had seen so many examples of his egregious lies and distortions, but every once in a while I would say, ‘We’ve got to make sure that the press, that the public, understands what he’s doing here, because if you don’t know, it can sound logical. If you don’t know, it can sound like it makes sense.’ At some level the Holocaust itself is beyond belief, and on that same level we would like David Irving to be right, we would like the deniers to be correct, and say ‘This didn’t happen, we don’t live in a world that has this legacy.’ The problem is, it did happen. But there’s a desire to say ‘It could never have happened’, you think, ‘Oh my God, thank God, I really was upset that it might have happened.’
So I wasn’t drawn in but I was always listening with a third ear, thinking, are other people being drawn in?
Geraldine Doogue: Sociologically. Look, part of the case relied on proving that his denial of the Holocaust came not from his research as an historian but as someone who was inherently anti-Semitic and racist. How was that done?
Deborah Lipstadt: Well, first of all, we had access through the process of discovery, to his diaries and his videotapes and his private speeches that he gave that had been videotaped etc., and it revealed to us things that we never imagined we would find. In his diary we found that he describes singing a little ditty he had written to his nine-month old daughter when he’s taking her for walks and whenever he’d quote, as he describes them, half-breed children are wheeled by, he sings to her,
I am a baby Aryan,
Not a Jew or a Sectarian,
I shall not marry an ape
Or things like, once I think it was in fact on Australian radio, he was being interviewed, and the interviewer said to him, they were talking about black people, blacks, or people’s colour, playing for the English cricket team, and Irving said, ‘I feel queasy when I see blacks playing for the English cricket team’, and in fact when Richard Rampton, my barrister, my QC, asked Irving about this in court, Irving said, ‘Oh Mr Rampton, you’re trying to paint me as a racist, I am not a racist, I think God just made this species different.’ Well that’s pretty revealing.
Geraldine Doogue: Yes.
Deborah Lipstadt: This is a man who gives a speech to an audience, and the audience laughs when he says these things. He says, ‘I was on vacation and I turned on the television, and the BBC, and I saw one of them reading our news to us.’
Geraldine Doogue: And that was of course referring to Sir Trevor McDonald, the veteran British reporter.
Deborah Lipstadt: Right, exactly, who is of Caribbean descent. And then when the Judge asked him about it in court, Irving said, ‘Oh, I was talking about women, one of them being women reading our news to us’, as if that made it better, you know. So he’s also a misogynist, he’s not just a racist, but he’s a misogynist.
Geraldine Doogue: The big question is, which is what some people like Christopher Hitchens say, in effect if he is so mad or so distorted, and there’s personal quirks there, that would have been exposed. Why did it need this type of campaign?
Deborah Lipstadt: Well it didn’t need it. I mean, he sued me, I never would have sued him, I never would have dragged him into court. He sued me, so I was forced to put up a defence, I had no choice. If I hadn’t put up a defence, as your listeners know, the onus was on me to prove the truth of what I said. I don’t believe history belongs in the court room. I was dragged in there and had no choice but to fight. So I wouldn’t say he’s mad. I’ll tell you what I think he is, I think he is pathetic, I think he’s a pathetic figure. And I think in fact he’s not alone, I think all racists and anti-Semites and misogynists, are pathetic, and the challenge is to fight them and not to build them up and say they’re so important, but to defeat, utterly defeat them, and at the same time to show what pathetic kinds of characters they are.
Geraldine Doogue: Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you. And I look forward to being in Australia in the not-too-distant future.
Geraldine Doogue: Yes, I think they’re welcoming you in a couple of months’ time, is that right?
Deborah Lipstadt: End of June.
Geraldine Doogue: End of June. Deborah Lipstadt, thanks so much.
Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you.
Geraldine Doogue: And Deborah Lipstadt’s book is called History on Trial, and it’s published by Harper Collins. And Late Night Live will be speaking to her when she does come in June, so keep an eye out for that.
Guests on this program: Deborah Lipstadt Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, USA
Publications: History on Trial, My Day in Court with David Irving. Publisher: HarperCollins,
Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
Story Producer: Kathy Gollan
Comment by Dr Fredrick Toben; Date: 22/05/2005 10:24; Subject: Holocaust denial;
Remark: Dear Geraldine and Kathy
Please note David Irving is not a 'Holocaust' Revisionist because he believes in the gassing story, and he is on record as saying there were limited gassings.
Prof Robert Faurisson, Prof Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Geoff Muirden, et al, are real Revisionists because they claim there never were any gassings at all, that the 'Holocaust' is a lie.
Prof Faurisson's challenge: "Show me or draw me a picture of the homicidal gas chamber", remains unfulfilled. To date no-one has done it.
In 1994 Prof Deborah Lipstadt visited Australia and she assured me that the plans of the homicidal gas chambers were available - as written up by Pressac in his books.
I am still waiting for her to show them to me.
In 1997 I visited Rabbi Abraham Cooper at the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance. He terminated our discussion when I responded to his question: "Do you believe in the gassing"? with - "I don't want to believe, I want to know. We need to know how the murder weapon functioned."
Since 2003 I am not permitted to talk openly and freely about the 'Holocaust' because a Federal Court of Australia order has banned me from questioning the factuality of the 'Holocaust' - and so when Professor Lipstadt arrives here in Australia, she can tell her audience anything she likes but no-one is permitted to contradict her or to question the details that she will present to support her view of things.
Such similar laws operate with criminal force in a number of European countries, and Israel has a law that enables them to extradite so-called 'Holocaust' deniers from any country in the world, or to neutralise them if there is no reciprocal extradition treaty.
Anyone who 'denies' the 'Holocaust' is immediately branded 'with the usual shut-up words: "Holocaust denier', 'racist', 'antisemite', 'neo-Nazi, etc.
Serious discrepancies in the wildly-fluctuating numbers of deaths is not permitted to be addressed and questioned. For example, until the 1988 Zündel Toronto, Canada, Holocaust trial the death figures at Auschwitz were permanently engraved on 20 plaques: 4 million.
After the trial these plaques were removed - and a few years later replaced with a figure of 1-1.5 million.
However, the overall 6 million number remained the same. I am not permitted to comment on this matter as per court order.
Ernst Zündel refuses to believe in the 'Holocaust' and was kidnapped from his home in the USA, spent 2 years in a
Canadian prison, was then flown to Germany where he awaits his trial for 'Holocaust' denial.
Gitta Sereny claims Auschwitz was not a death camp; VanPelt/Dwork claim Krema I (Auschwitz- Stammlager) was made to look like the gas chamber at Krema II (Auschwitz-Birkenau); Fritjof Meyer claims there were no gassings at Auschwitz but that these occurred in two farm houses outside of the camp - and he reduces the total number of deaths to around 510 000, and of those 356 000 were gassed.
So, Geraldine and Kathy, perhaps you can give this a little airing. So, please no one-sided 'Holocaust' propaganda because that is pure German hatred!
It is too cheap to just dismiss this kind of serious research, on which this information is based, as coming from crackpots, haters, deniers, antisemites, neo-Nazis, etc. Imagine, we have reached a situation in the world where legal constraints enforce 'Holocaust' belief. Prof Lipstadt is the Grand Inquisitor coming to Australia to flush out all those Dissenters/Heretics who refuse to bow to the new dogma: 'Holocaust'.
I would appreciate a response from you both.
Dr Fredrick Toben, Adelaide.
[See Newsletter No 106-7 for my summary of the London Irving-Lipstadt trial.]
Australia’s foremost Revisionist Researcher addresses members of Melbourne’s Unitarian Church
Mr Peter Abrehart introducing guest speaker, Mr Geoff Muirden
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve titled this talk "Florence Nightingale: handmaid of the Lord" because Florence Nightingale was a highly religious individual. She termed herself "Handmaid of the Lord" and wanted nurses also to be "handmaids of the Lord". She would not have been satisfied with the Melbourne Unitarian Peace-Memorial Church’s motto of: "seek the truth and serve humanity", the product of a more secular age, maybe also influenced by Victor James, former Unitarian Peace-Memorial Church Minister. She would havewanted it to be "seek God and serve humanity".
Florence Nightingale is generally known as the "Lady of the Lamp" because of her actions in Scutari, taking care of British soldiers during the Crimean War, 1854-56, but this deals with only about 36 months of her life, and leaves out a much longer period when she worked on various social reforms, not only in nursing and public health, but issues such as poverty and crime in England as well as sanitation, irrigation and education in other countries, notably perhaps in India.
If you look about the church you’ll see various signs commemorating famous Unitarians, but so far I’ve not seen a sign commemorating the celebrated nurse and social reformer, Florence Nightingale. * I would recommend that such a sign be put up in the church to celebrate her memory. It is all the more appropriate, as this church is hemmed in by the Mercy Hospital and the Freemasons, symbols of the Medical-Industrial Complex. I’ll be speaking mainly as an historian, but making passing reference to medical beliefs.
There is a sign in the church commemorating another famous Victorian, Charles Dickens, who came up with a fictional character, in Martin Chuzzlewit, called Sarah Gamp, who is portrayed as a drink-sodden and slatternly nurse, which was the image of nursing before Florence Nightingale’s reform efforts made nursing respectable. But Nightingale was more than a nurse. She was a social reformer.
If Unitarians want to read about Nightingale’s theology, Florence Nightingale: The Making of a Radical Theologian, by Val Webb. St Louis, Miss., USA, Chalice Press,2002, ISBN 0-8272-1032-9, is a good book to get. I would also recommend Florence Nightingale in Egypt and Greece; Her Diary and "Visions", by Michael D. Calabria. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1997. ISBN 0-7914-3115-0. I’ve written an article on Nightingale in the historical magazine, The Barnes Review, Vol. X #6, Nov/Dec., 2004, which includes much from Val Webb’s book.
Florence Nightingale had Unitarian roots, although she examined many other religious traditions of her time, and cannot be said to be only a Unitarian, but it had a strong influence on her thought. She was a strongly religious individual, and had what she regarded as four calls from God, one in 1837, that called her to some kind of service to humanity which wasn’t yet clear; another just before working at Harley Street (1853); before Crimea (in 1854) and after Sir Sidney Herbert’s death (1861) and, as well she recorded many prayers and conversations with God in her writing.
She was born in 1820, in Florence, Italy, and was given the name of the city of her birth. She had what might now be called a politically and theologically incorrect background.
A politically correct background of Victorianism would be: support of the monarchy, the Empire, and the class structure, and theologically correctness would be support of the Church of England and the Thirty-Nine Articles.
Despite this, Florence’s mother, Fanny, was granddaughter of Samuel Smith, an Englishman who was politically incorrect enough to send money to support the American War of Independence, despite losing his Georgia investments. Fanny’s father, William Smith, was a Unitarian who campaigned in the House of Commons against slavery, religious intolerance, and in favour of the poor and needy.
Unitarianism was a recent development in Florence’s day, growing out of the activities of Joseph Priestley, an important scientist, who rejected Christianity’s supernatural claims, including Christ’s Divinity and the Atonement, in favour of a religion based on reason. Priestley believed that instead of concentrating on atonement for sin, God’s Spirit was incarnate in everyone, and one should work for social and religious reform being guided by God’s Spirit within. Florence accepted this viewpoint and worked it out in her life, doing all she could to help the poor. In 1791, Priestley formed the Unitarian Society, which fostered dignity for all, including the poor and destitute. Many agreed with Priestley’s ideas for reform, but his ideas were theologically incorrect, according to the prevailing Church of England opinions. Later on, Florence developed these ideas into a kind of theology of her own, expressed in her book, Suggestions for Thought, in which the solution to ill health was to obey God’s Laws, and to work with God for the betterment of mankind. Florence’s ideas were consistent with the Unitarian emphasis on "deeds not creeds", that would reform mankind.
Florence’s mother, Fanny, grew up a Unitarian, but decided there were social advantages in being C of E. and had Anglican ideas taught to Florence, but Florence’s career shows she favoured Unitarianism. She did not favour the C of E’s endorsement of class distinctions and rejected Anglican theology. The prevailing attitude at the time was "oh, bless the squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper stations." That is not a philosophy that Florence accepted.
Florence had a bad relationship with her mother and her sister, Parthenope, and was closer in spirit to her father, William Edward Nightingale, usually known by his initials ‘WEN’. WEN had political ambitions and tried to be elected to Parliament. He failed, but he introduced Florence to political and legal institutions that paved the way for her later effectiveness as a power behind the government and the opposition.
She accepted WEN’s ideas of a social conscience and his political ambitions, and also there was a Unitarian emphasis on education for daughters greater than that in most C of E households. Florence was no slouch academically. WEN treated her like the son he never had, and taught her Greek, Latin, German, French, Italian, History, Grammar, Composition and Philosophy. Her Greek was so good that in later life, she helped translate Plato for Jowett, an Oxford don. When women were first admitted to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1834, Florence joined, at the ripe old age of 14. Although women were not admitted to University until much later, Florence had the equivalent of a university education.
This had the disadvantage, though, of helping Florence become more discontented. She had academic learning, but no career to go with it. Later, in her book, "Cassandra" she wrote about the frustration of upper class women being meant by society to sit around in a ladylike fashion, and do nothing much of value, and much of that dates back to her experience with WEN, discussing serious academic issues with him, while her mother and sister occupied themselves with trivial pursuits. Florence wanted to devote her life to a Cause, and one that had the support of God.
Florence experienced other religious traditions, including Catholicism, but rejected it mainly on the grounds of its disciplinary demands for obedience. She had an independent attitude that would not accept uncritical submission to any religion, but wanted to explore for herself and make up her own mind, which is a largely Unitarian attitude. While she was in Egypt, she had mystical experiences and visions, and in fact, was also attracted to mysticism - much of this is in Calabria’s book. But her mysticism was not just contemplating God, it was part of an activist philosophy in keeping with Unitarian reform.
Her reforms of nursing are still her best-known accomplishment, and it’s true that she won soldiers’ hearts at Scutari, but there was another side to her, not so saintly, that could be ruthless in pursuing goals she found important, where she could become a battleaxe brooking no opposition. These were conflicting sides of her nature: her tender care for the sick and unfortunate, but also a harsher side of domineering behaviour. A large part of her historic importance is that she made nursing a respectable profession, devised rules to follow and standards to observe. The problem was, that she acted like a drill sergeant and created a rigid hierarchy for nursing that is now being challenged by some nurses now. There is a saying that "nursing was born in the church, and raised in the army" and her nursing career illustrates this. Her significance goes beyond nursing into areas such as reform of the army medical service, attempts to improve health in India, and even association with other spinoffs of her activity, including the Red Cross, which she did not directly create, but which she inspired.
A brief note about the state of medicine and nursing today could be made. Just as there is a military-industrial complex in the United States generating the economy, so there is a medical-industrial complex in medicine now, called by cynics the Ill Health Industry, which creates such money spinners as the Cancer Industry, the AIDS Industry and others, largely treated by drugs. Florence died before the medical industrial complex came in, but if she were alive today, I think she would denounce it in favour of naturopathic and herbal remedies. The emphasis on sanitation and hygiene would, I believe, be more compatible with her beliefs.
In summary, Florence Nightingale was a difficult and complicated woman, a workaholic who laboured in private and in secret as part of a theology that accepted Christ’s words that good deeds should be done in private and not trumpeted to the world. A problem with her theology was that it seemed to be based on "salvation by works". As we all know, the problem with "salvation by works" is that no one can know how many works are sufficient to merit salvation. But her goal for reform was salvation of the world, not just salvation of the soul, and to that end, she laboured to good effect.
* (A church official later promised to put up a tribute to Florence Nightingale in the church and maybe mentioned in a church newsletter)
OUT OF BALANCE
Holocaust enforcer, Prof Deborah Lipstadt, heading for Australia! German hatred at its most virulent
Professor Lipstadt will not debate so-called ‘Holocaust’ deniers, but she will talk about them, i.e. she gossips about her opponents!
With a Federal Court of Australia Order that prevents them from mentioning contentious 'Holocaust' matters, how can Mrs Olga Scully and Dr Fredrick Töben participate in any debate that Professor Lipstadt may generate on matters 'Holocaust'?
"There is no debate on the 'Holocaust'!" - said Professor Lipstadt on her first visit to Australia in 1994. Will Australia's media comply with that directive coming from the world's foremost enforcer of the 'Holocaust' faith? In a little while we shall see how Australia's academics respond to this Lipstadt challenge, i.e. will they tow the orthodox 'Holocaust' line and submit to her will, that there is no debate about the 'Holocaust'?
Those who refuse to submit to the 'Holocaust' dogma, those who dare exercise their principles of freedom of research and freedom of speech, will be libelled and defamed. See: Offenkundigkeit: www.adelaideinstitute.org
Will Professor Lipstadt unashamedly use the primitive and non-intellectual/non-academic shut-up words to stifle free speech in Australia? HATER - HOLOCAUST DENIER - ANTISEMITE - RACIST - NEO-NAZI -XENOPHOBE. Australia's academics' moral and intellectual integrity is at stake here because such labelling will not solve the controversy - truth cries out to be heard! See: Comment: www.adelaideinstitute.org\Dissenters1\zundel\reports_may22.htm
The 'Holocaust' lies will continue to haunt those who still possess their moral and intellectual integrity. See: Truth & Lies www.adelaideinstitute.org\Dissenters1\zundel\reports_may24.htm
They will want to know the truth of what is asserted as an historical fact. See: Germany to pay Shoah restitution to N. African survivors
Professor Lipstadt is the 'Holocaust' industry's greatest promoter - would Prof Norman Finkelstein wish her well?
Advice from a reader
You should contact the moderator of Late Night Live to ask if you could be on the same show with Ms. Lipstadt to present Holocaust Revisionist's arguments, for if the moderator wants to allow listeners to know what Holocaust Revisionists actually say, they should not only present Ms. Lipstadt's one-sided views, but balance them with views from the other side, the way they do with other controversial subjects such as medical breakthroughs, cancer treatments, scientific theories, and theological arguments. If Lipstadt will not allow you on with her, or if the station believes she would veto your participation, the station can arrange for you to be the first caller to the show after her introductory remarks.
It's a great opportunity - don't let it slip away. You should also follow Lipstadt everywhere she goes through the country and ask questions at meetings where possible. You are the only one in Australia with the knowledge and tenacity to do this.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute